Clinton/Clark in 2004

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sergeant Bob

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
1,505
Location
The Swamps of Goldwater, MI
FrontPagemagazine.com
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS “TWO STARS,†Senator Hillary Clinton of New York and retired four-star General Wesley Clark. This is what former President Bill Clinton, according to the New York Times, told a gathering of big campaign donors in Chappaqua in early September.

General Clark now says he will announce his candidacy for President near his home in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Wednesday, September 17. At his side, reports Fox News Channel, will be the co-chair of his campaign, former First Lady of Arkansas and the United States Hillary Clinton, although the Clark campaign now says they may have “misunderstood†the freshman senator from New York..

These “two stars†could become the 2004 Democratic “dream ticket,†if they can agree who should be on top and who on the bottom. Both were born in Illinois and moved to Arkansas, but their star-crossed paths would be very different.

Hillary Clinton began as a “Goldwater Girl†who at first followed her father’s Republican inclinations. The 1960s at Wellesley College and Yale Law School radicalized her. Hillary Rodham became an activist supporter of the Black Panthers, a law intern in the office of the attorneys for the Communist Party USA, and the young bride of an aspiring politician in the one-party Democratic State of Arkansas.

Wesley Clark was taken to Arkansas at age five after the death of his father. He would attend West Point, graduating first in his class in 1966. He then attended Oxford University in England as a Rhodes Scholar, like Bill Clinton. But where Clinton womanized and led anti-war demonstrations in Europe against the United States, Clark studied and earned a Masters Degree.

<Snip>

“I’ve got some heavy artillery that can come in. I’ve got good logistics, and I’ve got strategic mobility,†said Clark to Newsweek Magazine, using metaphors sure to appeal to antiwar peacenik Democrats.

In fact he does appear to be supported by much of the Clintons’ political war machine. Among those flocking to his campaign are Clinton veteran gutter fighters Mark Fabiani, Bruce Lindsey, Bill Oldaker, Vanessa Weaver, George Bruno, Skip Rutherford, Peter Knight, Ron Klain and perhaps even former Clinton deputy chief of staff Harold Ickes, among others.

The Clintons’ sock puppet installed by them to head the Democratic National Committee, Terry McAuliffe, had already ordered an extra podium for General Clark for the scheduled September 25 New York City debate among Democratic presidential aspirants.

In addition to Hillary as his campaign co-chair, the General’s Draft Clark for President 2004 organization reportedly already has 166 professional coordinators in all 50 states.

The Clinton “orchestration†behind Clark’s campaign is so apparent that commentators are already speculating whether General Clark is running for himself – or as a stalking horse for Hillary and/or as a puppet for Bill. Is all this being arranged to knock down rivals and clear the way for a Clinton-Clark “C-C Rider†ticket in 2004?

<Snip>

While commanding NATO troops in defense of Muslim Kosovo and against Serbian Christians, for example, the hot-headed Clark commanded a subordinate British General to attack Russian troops that had landed without NATO permission at the airport in Kosovo’s capital. (Clark speaks fluent Russian but chose not even to talk with the Russian troops before attacking them.)

The British General Sir Mike Jackson reportedly refused Clark’s risky orders, saying: “I’m not going to start the Third World War for you!â€

Others who interviewed Gen. Clark in Kosovo were shocked by his casual talk about how he would launch military strikes against Hungary if it tried to send fuel to the Christian Serbians, or against Russian ships if they entered the war zone.

Gen. Clark in the Balkans also pursued policies that increased civilian casualties, such as deliberate bombing from high altitude and his policy to cut off fuel, food and energy from the civilians of Belgrade in wintertime. Clark also cozied up to at least one man accused of war crimes and ethnic cleansing, Bosnian commander Ratko Mladic.

“How,†investigative reporter Robert Novak quotes one diplomat as saying of Wesley Clark, “could they let a man with such a lack of judgment be (Supreme Allied Commander of Europe)?â€

<Snip>

In 1993 Wesley Clark, after a solid-but-not-stellar military career, was commanding the 1st Cavalry Division at a sweaty 339-square-mile base in Texas called Fort Hood. On a late winter day his office got a call from Democratic Texas Governor Ann Richards (later defeated and replaced by George W. Bush).

The Governor had an urgent matter to discuss. Crazies about 40 miles north of Fort Hood in Waco, Texas, had killed Federal agents, she said. If newly sworn-in President Bill Clinton signed a waiver setting aside the Posse Commitatus Act, which generally prohibits our military from using its arms against American citizens inside our borders, could Fort Hood supply tanks, men, and equipment to deal with the wackos at Waco?

Wesley Clark’s command at Fort Hood “lent†17 pieces of armor and 15 active service personnel under his command to the Waco Branch Davidian operation. Whether Clark himself helped direct the assault on the Davidian church using this military force at Waco has not been documented, but it certainly came from his command with his approval.

Eighty-two men, women, children and babies – including two babies “fire aborted†as their mothers’ bodies writhed in the flames of that Clinton holocaust – died from the attack using military equipment from Clark’s command.

“Planning for this final assault involved a meeting between Clinton Attorney General Janet Reno and two military officers,†this column reported, “who developed the tactical plan used but who have never been identified. Some evidence and analysis suggests that Wesley Clark was one of these two who devised what happened at Waco.â€

“Clark is more Clinton than Eisenhower,†writes Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard. His career advanced via politics, not the battlefield.

After Waco, Clark in April 1994 was promoted to Director of Strategic Plans and Policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon, which meant he could see and consult with the Clintons easily. Soon thereafter he was promoted to Commander of all U.S. Latin American Forces, and a year thereafter to the ultimate title of SACEUR, commander of all the NATO forces in Europe, a position Clark would hold until he retired in May 2000.

Even Clark’s vaunted fourth star as a general was unearned, according to Robert Novak. It was twice rejected as undeserved by Pentagon brass, but then was awarded by his patron Bill Clinton after Clark begged the President for it.

“Clark,†wrote Novak, “is the perct model of a 1990s political four-star general.†The Clintons love him. The troops he has commanded, by contrast, call him the “Ultimate Perfumed Prince.â€
 
Has anyone else heard HC on the radio of late, screaming about insider power brokering from 1600 PA Avenue? She comes across as a shrill, bitter, harpy.

I really hope this pair are the annoited ones, cause America does not want them.
 
Hey, here's an idea.....

Since Hitlery is such a flaming socialist, let 'em run FRANCE!
 
I don't think you can hang Waco around Clark's neck so easily. Similarly, the policies of high altitude bombing in Serbia ... sometimes civilians are going to die. We take a lot of pracatutions to prevent civilian deaths but it is inevitable. You have to destroy a country's infrastructure to defeat it, especially since on Clinton's orders we were not going to use ground forces.

But threats to attack Hungary or the Russians are very disurbing to say the least.
 
When was the last time that a retired general ran for president on the Democrat ticket?

The only one I can think of was MacClellan. The only thing he achieved of lasting success in the Army was to design a saddle. He was handsome, charismatic, and intelligent. He was also pompous, arrogant, and an ineffective combat leader. He was the darling of the media, and gained a large political following. He was fired as commander of the Union Army of the Potomac and ran against Lincoln, who was running for his second term.

So, have there been any other Democrat generals who ran for president?
 
When was the last time that a retired general ran for president on the Democrat ticket?

The only one I can think of was MacClellan. The only thing he achieved of lasting success in the Army was to design a saddle. He was handsome, charismatic, and intelligent. He was also pompous, arrogant, and an ineffective combat leader. He was the darling of the media, and gained a large political following. He was fired as commander of the Union Army of the Potomac and ran against Lincoln, who was running for his second term.

Wow, the parallels are amazing.

Handsome? I dunno, go ask a woman.
Charismatic? Presumably somewhat, at least enough to earn, or suck up enough, for promotion to four-star general.
Intelligent? Ditto
Pompous? Check.
Arrogant? Check.
Innefective Combat leader? Check.
Removed from his command? Check.

That about sums it up. :D
 
Wesley Clark is Bill Clinton with a military record. That's why the Clintons are backing him.

Clark and Hillary will definitely be in bed together for the 2004 run - the only question is who will be on top. :D
 
Jackson

Oh, yeah- Andrew Jackson.

The Democrat party was considerably different then. Jackson was a genuine leader and a hero to boot. Although the battle he is renowned for winning took place after the war had ended:D

Jackson would be considered a conservative now, although his expansionist policies in relation to Texas would make him an imperialist.

McClellan, however, was the great hope of the anti-war croud in 1863-64
 
Lose My Lunch

Hillary could well be the one and only major candidate who could hand the election back to the republicans. The story featured in TIME magazine on Sept 15 edition detailing how the saudis are funding Al Qaeda (the group that murdered 3000 Americans) should provide plenty of fodder for the demos to beat Bush to death with. I don't think he will be able to backpedal fast enough to explain why he declared war on a country who had nothing to do with 9/11 and can't seem to get his lips unstuck from the butts of the country that actually paid for it. But, hillary could be that special someone who could repel just enough voters to give Bush his first actual presidential win.
 
Great (if disturbing) info on Clark. If even part of what was said about his command in the Balkans is true, this guy would truly be a lunatic with his finger "on the button." How is someone going to stop a president from nuking some country in a fit of anger?

And the stuff about Waco is worth a trip to the toilet, even if only partially true. He showed the willingness to use the armed forces against citizens that the Fedgov had demonized and targeted. What would he do as President if, for example, some Senator, cabinet officer or other high official was assassinated with a rifle? Would we have President Clark ordering the military and NG to go door-to-door to collect guns, and damn the consequences?

This guy is scary, and more so because of the intimate relationship (no, not that kind) with the Clintons.

IMHO, with a Clark presidency (and esp. if Hitlary is his VP) we are looking at either a world war, civil war or a dictatorship (or some combination thereof). Buy stock in the company that makes Imodium.:what:
 
Here's the story according to my favorite Democrat rag...

www.tnr.com

CAMPAIGN JOURNAL
The New Hope
by Ryan Lizza

Indianola, Iowa
Here at the twenty-sixth annual Harkin Steak Fry, some 5,000 Iowans have gathered on a muddy ballooning field to watch Bill Clinton return to the presidential campaign trail. In the 2000 election, Clinton was famously relegated to the sidelines by Al Gore, who feared his boss's baggage would be a liability on the stump. But, this year, the Democratic candidates' biggest fear about sharing a stage with Clinton is not that he will sully them, it's that they will look unimpressive by comparison. Clinton himself seems aware of this stature gap. "I like this field," he says in a manner that suggests he thinks the crowd may be surprised by the statement. "I get tired of people saying this field can't beat the incumbent president," he adds--a comment that serves only to remind the crowd of the criticism. The only reason pundits are down on the current crop of candidates, Clinton says, is because "they are not famous yet."

He may be right. The candidate who arguably has the most buzz today not only isn't here, he's not even a candidate yet. Though Wesley Clark won't announce he's running for another four days, he's already a presence--at least if one judges from the lines at the "Draft Clark" booth. And, as will become clear as Clark's campaign team materializes over the next few days, the former general may be better positioned to inherit the Clinton mantle than any of the candidates vying for it here in Indianola.

John Kerry noisily enters the event with a large train of reporters, camera crews, and volunteers. But, as I trail along with him through the mud to the stage, his entourage melts away, and he moves relatively anonymously through the crowd. He is in minor danger of being mowed down by an oncoming mob of boisterous Bob Graham supporters shaking homemade noisemakers made from beer cans--money is tight in the Graham campaign--when his two staffers frantically steer him clear of the throng. Howard Dean suffers a worse indignity: After Clinton arrives for his speech, Dean approaches to greet him. But he is momentarily detained by a member of the ex-president's security detail, who places his body between Dean and Clinton as if the front-runner for the Democratic nomination were a dangerous stalker.

Dick Gephardt was so worried that sharing a stage with Clinton would inevitably produce an unflattering contrast that he initially refused to attend the event, relenting only after a personal plea from Senator Tom Harkin. Gephardt makes a quick appearance with supporters on the field but skips an address to the crowd (scheduling conflict, of course). But, even if Gephardt thinks it's a little humbling to stand next to Clinton, he--like all the major candidates this year--fully embraces the legacy of the Clinton presidency. "Every candidate tries as hard as he can to use his name in the same sentence as Clinton," says Erik Smith, Gephardt's spokesman. With little notice during the last few months, the Clintonites seem to have won the argument over whether their man is an asset or a liability for Democrats. "Within the party, there was once a debate," says Smith. "There is no longer a debate."

Not only do all the candidates embrace (or at least claim to embrace) Clinton-style centrism; a specific return to the Clinton era is now at the core of every candidate's message. Instead of talking about raising taxes, Dean promises "to return to Bill Clinton's tax rates." When Gephardt talks about the economy, the centerpiece of his pitch is that, in 1993, he led the fight on the House floor to pass the Clinton fiscal plan. In an editorial penned a few days after the steak fry, Kerry accuses Dean and Gephardt of the ultimate betrayal--adopting policies that "turn their back on ... the Clinton economic legacy." In the "Joe's Record" section of Joe Lieberman's campaign website, Clinton's name is invoked a dozen times. John Edwards, who has most self-consciously styled his message and policies on Clinton's, goes the furthest in defending the Clinton legacy in Indianola. "I am tired of Democrats walking away from Bill Clinton and Al Gore!" Edwards yells. They are all Clintonites now.

One reason the debate about Clinton is now over is that the former president and the Democratic candidates have suddenly found their interests aligned. One of the chief pursuits of Clinton and his corps of loyal ex-aides these days is defending the legacy and policies of his presidency from conservatives and the Bush administration. (The two essential texts in this effort are Hillary Clinton's and Sid Blumenthal's recent books. Bill publishes his memoir next year.) As the deficit explodes, the economy stalls, and Bush's approval ratings drop, the Clintonites suddenly see a bull market for the Clinton era. "Clinton has provided a baseline that Bush can be judged by in every category," says Blumenthal.

Clinton's Indianola speech makes this case, serving as a kind of State of the Union in reverse, his famous lists of accomplishments artfully morphed into a litany of Bush failures: The Bush administration is "going to take three hundred thousand poor children and kick them out of after-school." They "tried to kick eighty-four thousand kids off their student loans" and "one hundred thousand unemployed workers out of their job-training program." Bush wanted to "to take eighty-eight thousand uniformed police off the street" and he cut AmeriCorps by 40 percent, according to the numbers Clinton effortlessly weaves into his remarks. (One gets the sense that the former president reads the annual Bush budget with great care, especially the line items concerning signature Clinton projects.) Clinton also works in a plug for welfare reform and reminds the audience that his policies produced "record numbers of new businesses," "record numbers of millionaires and billionaires," and "took one hundred times as many people out of poverty as were taken out in the Reagan-Bush years."

Clinton's voice is being heard far beyond Indianola. This week, Tom Daschle and other Senate Democrats are scheduled to hold an event on Bush budget policies that will highlight the "top ten budget cuts," a list that includes almost every cut mentioned by Clinton in Indianola. Coincidence? No. The event was Clinton's idea, and he personally suggested the cuts to highlight.

Ultimately, next year's race will be one more referendum on Clinton, with the Democratic nominee arguing for a return to the policies of the Clinton era and Republicans claiming that all our economic and national security troubles are Clinton's fault in the first place--that he created a bubble economy and ignored the terrorist threat. Several of the senior Clinton advisers I interviewed believe they've already won this debate when it comes to the economy and domestic policy. "On domestic policy, it's not even a close call," argues one person close to the former president. "But people are now looking back on his foreign policy more fondly."

This is where Wesley Clark comes in. Clark has emerged as the candidate of the Clintonites. Whereas once that mantle looked as though it might go to Edwards, the North Carolina senator is presently stuck in neutral. Edwards's gamble that the Iraq war would go well and the election would turn sharply back to the economy now seems unlikely to pay off. Having strongly supported Bush on the war and lacking significant foreign policy experience, Edwards is now poorly positioned to take advantage of Bush's sudden vulnerability on foreign affairs.

So it was somehow fitting that Clark's announcement this week eclipsed the coverage of Edwards's official campaign kickoff. On paper, Clark is an almost laboratory-perfect candidate to run a campaign that will compare the Clinton years with the Bush years. On domestic policy, he is a blank slate that can easily be filled in--much as Edwards was--with elements of Clintonomics and the Third Way. More important, talking to some of Clinton's advisers, one gets the sense that they see Clark as the perfect man to redeem Clinton's foreign policy legacy. He wasn't just "Clinton's general," as some in the Pentagon dismissively referred to him; he was Clinton's general in what the Clintonites consider their defining foreign policy achievement: the Kosovo war. That war emphasized what ex-Clinton aides argue were the three pillars of his foreign policy: the judicious use of force, multilateralism, and an emphasis on human rights. Today, former senior aides to Clinton talk a lot about the fraying Western alliance and Bush's bumbling personal diplomacy and unilateralism. They argue that it will take a military man to make the argument that the military is not America's only foreign policy tool. And they seem to view Clark as someone who doesn't just neutralize Bush's national security strengths but who neutralizes Clinton's cultural and characterological weaknesses. He's an Arkansas Rhodes scholar who not only fought in Vietnam but had part of his hand blown off there.

Little wonder, then, that Clark's kitchen cabinet reads like the guest list from Renaissance Weekend: Bruce Lindsey, Skip Rutherford, Don Fowler, Mickey Kantor, Eli Segal, Ron Klain, Peter Knight, and Mark Fabiani are all veterans of the Clinton years. (The presence of Lindsey, who is at the heart of every conspiracy theory about Clinton and is one of the former president's best friends, will give an immediate jolt of energy to the Clinton-hating right.) Representative Charles Rangel of New York, an important black leader who is close to the Clintons, gave Clark an enthusiastic endorsement this week, and Rahm Emanuel, the senior-Clinton-aide-turned-congressman, is also now on board. The New York Times recently reported that Clinton told friends at a party that there were only "two stars" among Democrats: Hillary and Clark. Says one top Washington Democrat, "There is a clear sense from the Clinton camp that they are winking and nodding for Clark."

When I briefly talk to Clinton after his Indianola speech, he is coy, suggesting his one-day dip into presidential politics was just that. "This is a really unusual thing for me to be doing this," he tells me. Asked whether it is too late for Clark to get into the race, he initially feigns ignorance of the kind of political details for which he has a famously encyclopedic memory. "I don't really know as much as I used to even about the filing deadlines," he demurs. But, pressed on whether Clark has missed the boat, he finally offers a firm "no." "I think this thing is still coming together," he says.

A few minutes later, having shaken hands and signed autographs for an hour, he gets into an SUV and is driven off across the field. He sticks his head halfway out the window and waves goodbye to a mass of cheering Iowans.

He'll be back.
 
America isn't dumb enough to elect Shillary Snopes Clinton or this Clark creature.

You're joking, right? A Democratic ticket consisting of a Clinton will, by default, hugely dominate the following demographics:

African-Americans
White women not named "Tamara"
My stupider relatives
The state of California
Anyone awaiting criminal indictment
Islamic terrorists

That's easily enough people to take over the country, especially if the economy doesn't pick up.
 
My gut tells me the Presidency in 2004 is Hillary's for the asking.
I believe she will run, once she decides W is vulnerable.
She can't afford to wait for 2012 if one of the other Democratic candidates, Dean or Clark, appears capable of beating W.

I was a Bush supporter, but I am having my doubts now.
That said, Clinton is a far worse option in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top